635 réponses à ce sujet

[Ninja Stan]

This is a reminder to please keep this discussion civil, if you want it to stay open. We can disagree with each other without resorting to name-calling or insults against each other. Thank you.

[Fortlowe]

Let me get this **** straight: We got pharmaceutical companies that have cures, but sell treatments instead. Gun manufacturers that bribe and bully for their right to sell death machines. Oil companies that buy and moth ball any technology that might put them outta the polluting and exploiting business. And cigarette companies that sell intentionally addictive flaming death.

But a videogame company gets voted the worst in America. Yup. I'm retiring to Costa Rica.

[addiction21]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Urgon wrote...

The point is that EA is affected by this poll. If their PR takes hits, they lose pre-orders,they lose money. Their stock is abysmal. BoA? not so much.You can hate them all you want, they will still take your home if they want and give you the middle finger on top of that. EA depends on "petulant childish gamers" to stay in buisness.

I can agree with this. It is a valid point.

How is it valid? Looking at this thread even those that bash EA on a daily basis around here mock the poll. Its only the hardcore desperate to validate their opinions that are right now running forum to forum posting threads and linking this.
Many who will end up buying the next EA game they want anyway.

I don't even see the number of voters this year just percentages. Last year it was maybe five thousand and nearly a even split. No any rational consumer will laugh.

P.S.
No I am not a fan of EA before the drone or fanboy accusations come in

[legion999]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

I just wish this were a worldwide competition, because then it would have opened things up for stunningly incompetent companies like TEPCO - you remember them and the meltdowns in three reactors at their nuclear power plant in Fukushima, right? And how they completely ignored warnings about potential tsunami wave heights (and basically lied about it later), resulting in the plant being built in a location that wasn't actually safe?

I think EA deserves to be slagged for the issues over SimCity for sure. But to put things in perspective, there are much worse companies in this world than EA. *points at TEPCO again*

There are much worse companies in America than EA. No need to look at the rest of the world.

[bmwcrazy]

k177sh0t wrote...

Congratulations!!

+1 
Knowing EA's history, they'll be able to definitely keep this title for a couple years. 

[wafflez]

Thing is, if BoA won would they even acknowledge it or be affected by it? I think not.

[bmwcrazy]

Fortlowe wrote...

Let me get this **** straight: We got pharmaceutical companies that have cures, but sell treatments instead. Gun manufacturers that bribe and bully for their right to sell death machines. Oil companies that buy and moth ball any technology that might put them outta the polluting and exploiting business. And cigarette companies that sell intentionally addictive flaming death.

But a videogame company gets voted the worst in America. Yup. I'm retiring to Costa Rica.

Funny.

My coworker is trying to get green cards for her retired Costa Rican grandparents. Maybe I should let her know about this poll so she can forget about it.

[AresKeith]

I wonder how their award is gonna look this time

[legion999]

addiction21 wrote...

There is no leap of logic going on. Like I said there are those that were trying. Did they play a part? We do not know but to act as if there are not little groups out their trying to push their own agenda whether it be against LGTB's or because they just don't like EA is... well the most polite way I can put it is naïve.

[b]Nor me or EA made the claim that EVERY person that voted against them or would believed the same thing. That's your leap of logic and poor reading comprehension or desperate attempt to twist others words to make them out to be worse then they actually are.

Who's acting like they don't exist? 

Then maybe don't link to a homophobic comment and follow it with “Stay classy gamers"?

[Fast Jimmy]

A few things...

The Consumerist is the online division of the popular Consumer Reports magazine. That is to say, their concern, first and foremost, is with products, services and goods that are directly consumed (hence the name) by the general populace. Therefore, how consumers view their relationship with said companies is at play here. Bank of America gave money to people who they clearly should not have... that was incredibly foolish and reckless of them to do. But their goods and services provided still today are still utilized and enjoyed by their consumers - the one group affected by the poor decision is not directly affected by the other. You can still use your ATM card. You can still bank online. They are not delivering poor services to their consumers on an on-going basis.

On the other hand, a large portion of the video game consumers believe that EA continuously puts out subpar products and engages in poor business decisions CONSTANTLY AND REPEATEDLY. From a consumer point of view, people believes the company equates to poor quality and low standards. Yes, they are a luxury good company... but ATM cards and paying bills online are luxury, convenience services as well that BoA engages in.

Whether or not EA has done more harm than other companies is not really the point of this poll. The point of this poll is what company is the worst in the eyes of consumers. BP spilt oil that affected the ecology and safety of an area of roughly five or ten million people. But gas consumers in other parts of the world did not have their livelihood harmed. But in the case of EA, every genre across its book of business has large issues with consumer satisfaction. RPGs, shooters, strategy games, even their flagship sports franchises are having huge outcries about cuts in quality and satisfaction.

So is EA the most evil company in America? Is it the most damaging company in America? Is it the most irresponsible company in America? The answer to all of these is, of course, no. But do they offer the worst consumer experience by their brand association and management of products? Arguably, after winning two years in a poll designed to identify this exact designation, yes.

[Cutlass Jack]

legion999 wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

Also stuff like this. http://freerepublic....s/3003277/posts Go to the very bottom.

Stay classy gamers.

Nice leap of logic. Of course one person on a right-wing (judging by the title and comments) site who is homophobic is obviously a gamer and obviously any gamer who voted EA is a right wing homophobe.

Sorry but no. The leap of logic is taking what EA actually said (that homophobic people are posting links to the Consumerist...as that link so aptly shows) and twisting it to mean that EA says anyone who voted for them is a Right wing Homophobe. Which they never said.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Fortlowe wrote...

Let me get this **** straight: We got pharmaceutical companies that have cures, but sell treatments instead. Gun manufacturers that bribe and bully for their right to sell death machines. Oil companies that buy and moth ball any technology that might put them outta the polluting and exploiting business. And cigarette companies that sell intentionally addictive flaming death.

But a videogame company gets voted the worst in America. Yup. I'm retiring to Costa Rica.

Just yesterday, President Obama gave a very powerful and emotional speech over gun control and how people need to get regulation passed to stop assault weapons (IMO these only belong in the hands of highly trained professionals like the military and law enforcement) from being sold, and to regulate gun purchases.

And of course, the extreme right wing guys jumped up and said that they'd do everything in their power to prevent such a vote from ever taking place.

[Allan Schumacher]

That statement is worrying, all it says to me is that EA don't know or are just ignoring why people hate them.

Just to be clear, because this comes up a lot: Moore acknowledges we need to do better with our fans.

I can understand challenging the idea of "Always Online isn't DRM" (you can argue it's irrelevant if people are feeling the service isn't providing).

The bullet list that Moore writes up is because those types of movements have apparently popped up, and he's saying if you're voting EA as worst company for those reasons, he's saying that they will be disappointed.

I do agree that EA as a company has stumbled and I hope we can pick things back up. I have no issue with people being frustrated, and while I don't put much stock into this contest if someone feels it's a way they need to express their frustration, then that's their prerogative. I can't speak for all of Moore's bullet list, but I do know there have been pushes from message boards to up our vote for things such as the LGBT perspective, and for things like that I do agree wholeheartedly with Moore that that's not something I'm interesting in reneging on.

And of course that they won this award because all the homophobes voted for them.

He does not say this. And as I warned in another thread, I will not be amused by people perpetuating their dislike for EA through propagating incorrect information (and to me, hurtful. I agree with Moore's stance on the LGBT issue. If it makes you feel better, imagine I said it.).  Lets please not do that.

Moore addressing that point is specifically for those people that used that as their reason (and as stated, there are groups that do so). I'd rather EA spend their time recovering consumer confidence by improving the quality of their games and the service to their customers, than get caught up in LGBT intimidation tactics. I feel this is what Moore says, and I think many people would typically agree. Focus on the games.


As for the vote itself, I don't like it because externally I think it is a net negative for how gaming culture is received.  It's going around a lot on my facebook and through other areas, and it makes me cringe to see people being dismissive towards gamers and gaming culture because of it.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 09 avril 2013 - 08:41 .

[bmwcrazy]

Let's try not to get too political.

For now, just point and laugh.

[legion999]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

legion999 wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

Also stuff like this. http://freerepublic....s/3003277/posts Go to the very bottom.
Stay classy gamers.

Nice leap of logic. Of course one person on a right-wing (judging by the title and comments) site who is homophobic is obviously a gamer and obviously any gamer who voted EA is a right wing homophobe.

Sorry but no. The leap of logic is taking what EA actually said (that homophobic people are posting links to the Consumerist...as that link so aptly shows) and twisting it to mean that EA says anyone who voted for them is a Right wing Homophobe. Which they never said.

EA didn't say that, they gave other reasons than homophobia. I interpreted that addiction21 said that due to his: “Stay classy gamers.", comment.

[Allan Schumacher]

That may be true, but pounding on your chest that Origin is a success while using this forced sign-up method rings a bit hollow... then again, you were forced to use Steam for Skyrim as well, so I guess that's not only EA doing this kind of thing.

What Origin is doing is exactly what Valve did with Steam to help adoption (things like Counterstrike and Half-Life 2, for example). We are at a point now where many games not even made by Valve require Steam to be installed, which no doubt Valve loves. I support this move because it helps adoption and I think pursuing a digital delivery system is a good thing for the industry going forward.

[mousestalker]

No one picked Fisker? Or Suntech? Or Residential Capital? Or even Dewey & LeBoeuf?

Delivering a game with a shaky debut is somehow far worse than making vapourware and raking in subsidies or making government guaranteed loans to people who shouldn't qualify to buy bubble gum or ethically impaired, over-paid law firms with medieval accounting practices.

[Ridwan]

Maverick827 wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Yup ignore the article that deals with business, that's the way to go.

I'm not going to argue against the author of an article that isn't here.  If you have a point to make, then make it yourself.

You didn't even take the tiny effort to make the link clickable.

Well since you didn't bother to check the edit, or right click the link and paste it to a new window, I'll just copy paste the entire thing for you.

Feel free to dismiss the author as another hater.


EA’s Top 10 Corporate Pitfalls and What Execs Can Learn From Them


558 days ago by Nicholas Greene 0

This week’s top ten list is going to be a little different from our usual fare. Today, we’re going to focus on a specific business in the tech industry. It’s not just any old corporation we’re looking at, either. This company is one of the biggest there is in its field. Ladies and gentlemen, today, we’re going to take a look at Electronic Arts.

For those of you who don’t know, Electronic Arts is the Microsoft of the gaming industry…right down to the demonization. There are a lot of folks who claim that if you support EA, you might as well be in bed with Satan (no joke).

Of course, all of this could easily be the fault of the consumers as much as the company, right? After all, don’t we kind of have a history of painting corporations as these unstoppable, evil forces?

And while it’s true EA may be unfairly painted as “The demon of the gaming industry” (A role, it seems, which is quickly being handed over to Activision), some of the blunders they’ve made in the past aren’t exactly helping their reputation. Business owners, take note- these are ten things you never want to do if you want customers to actually like your company. Note that this is mostly a list of things that EA has done wrong in the past- they have shown they’re making efforts to improve.

They’ve still got a long way to go before they actually get back into the good graces of their customer base, but they’re ever so slowly clawing their way out of the hole they dug for themselves. Plus, lists like this can always be problematic- we’re painting a supermassive corporation as a singular entity. Of course there are going to be bad eggs in the basket.
Now, more astute readers might notice I’ve not really detailed how these have hurt the company- and the thing is, aside from lower sales(which might not even be related to their mistakes) and a bit of a hit to their stocks…they really haven’t damaged EA’s position as a market leader all that terribly. The problem about a lot of gamers (and this is speaking as one) is that we open ourselves up to a lot of abuse.

We fume and rage about the injustices perpetrated by company A, and then when the time comes to ‘vote with our wallets’….we don’t. We quietly buy their products, all the while railing against the ‘evils’ of the company.

Suffice it to say, not all demographics are like this- so there’s still something enterprise leaders (and up and coming CEOs) can take away from these blunders.

Anyway, enough rambling. Here’s a list of the top ten stupid blunders EA has made in the past, what they’re doing to improve, and what enterprise readers can learn from the situation.

Playing Devil’s Advocate has always been a favorite pastime of mine.

1. Buyout, Buyout, Buyout
I’m going to clarify- buying out another company isn’t a bad idea. Hell, buyouts can end up improving both companies in the long run. Note that I said buyout- not hostile takeover.

EA seems to make a habit of going after and buying out smaller studios in order to gain access to their intellectual property- a habit which, when it comes to light, never looks good.

This is a pretty sticky scenario to manage. In a lot of cases, if one company buys out another, considerably smaller one, it’s going to end up getting some bad press- or an antitrust lawsuit, depending on the circumstances. The moral of the story here, I suppose, is that you should merge with caution.

It’s kind of like shopping while hungry- the difference between coming back with some fruits and vegetables, and a truckload of Twinkies and doughnuts. If you buy out every single business in sight, it will come back to bite you- a lot of folks are looking for any reason they can to paint big business as the ‘bad guy,’ and greed is a particularly nice sin to pin on them.

Of course, there’s another thing EA’s done in the past that it really shouldn’t have…

2. Meddling too much in the products of their subsidiaries
“Executive meddling.” Look, if you actually do know what the public wants and likes, that’s great. Trouble is, Dunning-Kruger’s a really fickle master.

Toss a few suggestions to your subsidiary companies as to what you feel they should do with their product. Note that I said suggestions- don’t change the whole bloody product. EA has done this in the past, and they actually seem to have learned from their mistakes in recent years.

Yes, they do still muck about a bit with their products.

And yes, maybe toying with a product to try to make it “more appealing to the mass market” might end up ruining the original feel of the product…but honestly? It’s a risk that EA needs to take, if it’s going to reach a larger market. The problem is that in spite of their efforts, EA still seems to mess things up a touch more often than they should.

What’s the moral of this story? Don’t meddle too much in the products of your acquired subsidiaries- they’re popular for a reason. If you’re going to change a product, make sure you stay faithful to what the product was originally supposed to be. Trouble is; you can’t do that if you don’t know who you’re marketing to. Speaking of marketing…

3. Not Understanding Their Demographic/Poor Marketing
EA should honestly fire their marketing division and PR department.

They’d probably have better luck with a team of trained baboons. That link there is to an advertising campaign that managed to not only perpetuate stereotypes about the people EA was trying to sell to, but also single-handedly insulted every single potential customer over the age of 13(By the way, the game that’s the subject of the aforementioned campaign rated M-only meant for people over the age of 18.)

This is one area which I’ve noticed EA has hardly improved at all. Their marketing campaigns are ridiculously off the wall, and offend their customers in lieu of actually selling a product. The people who buy the games buy them in spite of the advertisements, not because of them.

Maybe EA thinks they’re being ‘edgy’ or ‘hip’ with these ads, but in truth, all they’re doing is being crude and offensive. Marketing folks, take note: if you launch a campaign that you think could potentially offend one of your largest demographics, and it does…don’t bloody well repeat the process. Of course, how they advertise their games could have something to do with how a lot of people think they relate to the people who buy their products…

4. Public Disrespect/Questionable Practices
EA….has a reputation. 

Far too many people look at them and see them as arrogant, disrespectful; and possessed of a genuine disdain for both consumer and competitor. They have been taking steps in recent days to rectify this image, and cast themselves in a more positive light, but they still have a very, very long way to go before they bring themselves up from demon to darling in the eyes of consumers.

This is something of a continuation of the last point: EA has stunningly poor public relations skills. Even when they do something positive, it’s overshadowed by negative events, or cast in a negative light.

What can a business learn from them here? It’s simple- watch what your employees and executives say in public. Be mindful of how your business’s agents are behaving (yes, that includes yourself).  If you’re not careful, you will be cast as the bad guy.

5. Digital Rights Management
This is quite possibly one of EA’s most mind-numbingly stupid tactical blunders. For those of you who don’t know a whole lot about the games industry- or really, the software industry in general- piracy is an ever present problem.

Just like hackers find ways around every single advance in the security industry, pirates find a new means of acquisition for every new means of protection. Companies are doing all they can to prevent this- and in some cases, their reactions are a touch more ‘extreme’ than others.

In terms of ‘extremist’ copy protection, few companies have approached EA’s downright draconian attempts at DRM.
For example, let’s have a look at Spore.  You could only install the game three times, with one account per disc…and
then it pretty much became unusable.  Worse, this software actually drew a lawsuit, by virtue of the fact that it installed without the knowledge of the user.

…Way to give the pirates moral ground to stand on, EA.

DRM and piracy are two very, very difficult issues to deal with, particularly since pirates by their nature don’t play by the rules. Any company that produces a software or media product runs the risk of that product being pirated. I suppose the lesson here is this: if you’re going to include security programs in your software…don’t make it so intrusive that people don’t want to buy it.

They haven’t really improved much either, if the next point is anything to go by.

6. The Origin EULA scandal
Origin is EA’s digital distribution platform- think Steam (the market leading digital distribution platform for entertainment
software), but exclusively for EA titles (more on that in a moment). Using Origin, users can buy, download, and install any of EA’s titles, all without having to leave the comfort of their computer desk. Sounds pretty convenient, no? Thing is, when Origin released there was one small problem with it. It watched you.

Now, a lot of platforms collect user information- Steam, the dominant platform on the market, warns in its own EULA that it does. The trouble with Origin was that, well…it basically gave EA free reign to collect whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted, to distribute to third parties at their leisure.

They fixed the problem shortly after virtually the entire gaming community went up in arms over it, but the simple fact that they thought they could get away with something like this reflects rather poorly on the company.

The lesson here? Make sure your own EULA, should you have one, will stand up to public scrutiny, because as much as you think people won’t read it…they will.

7. Taking Licensing Too Far
Like many larger businesses, EA took a bigger chunk out of the market than it should have. And they’ve paid for it. EA’s licensing of the entire NFL franchise-everything right down to stadiums-has caused its fair share of controversy. Whether or not it’s actually illegal and a clear example of an antitrust case…well, that’s up to the courts to decide. Either way, it’s pretty clear that EA might have overstepped their bounds a bit with the deal.

This once again comes down to a combination of PR and business sense. Trying to establish a monopoly is never a good idea, particularly when you’ve already got a reputation as both money-hungry and power-hungry.

8. Poor Treatment of Employees
When your business has its employees allegedly working 10 AM to 9 PM Monday through Saturday…there’s a problem. Worse, when a single blog post ends up inspiring a movement which culminates in a class action lawsuit…yeah.

I don’t think I need to say much else here. As near as I can tell, EA learned its lesson from the first lawsuit, and we’ve not heard anything further on the matter since.

I don’t think I really even need to say what a business should take away from this.

9. Lack of Innovation
Particularly under CEO Larry Probst, EA relied far too heavily on sequels. Many times, they’ve been accused of simply riding on the coattails of established franchises, not bothering to try something new in favour of milking that which is old. Granted, they’ve been making great strides in this department lately, ever since they decided to turn things around back in 2006. They’re still leaning on pre-established franchises (like it or not, sequels sell) but at the same time, they’re looking to branch out and try new things.

The lesson here is something I’ve said time and again- if you’re going to truly succeed, you have to be willing to change, adapt, and innovate. Otherwise, you’ll just get left behind.

10. Trying To Take On Steam
Valve’s Steam platform is the de facto market leader when it comes to digital distribution. I’m still trying to work out why EA decided they needed their own digital distribution platform, particularly when all their products are already on Steam. What they’re doing is akin to attempting to challenge Google’s search engine- and I don’t think it’s going to work out.

Steam’s got a bigger library, it’s been around for a lot longer, has virtually the same features as Origin, and is run by a company that, unlike EA actually has a decent reputation in the market. Further, the games on Origin aren’t even going to be exclusive to Origin. So…why bother with Origin, then?

I’m not saying that people shouldn’t try to establish themselves in a market where there’s a clear top dog…I’m just saying that if they do, they need…some means of competing.

[Formatting fixed.]

Modifié par Ninja Stan, 09 avril 2013 - 09:09 .

[Angrywolves]

Stan and Alan are watching .rotfl. I don't know if EA deserves the award over BOA, the Koch Bro, Walmart,etc,etc. I only play rpgs so I don't know how they've antagonized a lot of their fans other than the recent SimCity debacle. Of course DAfans blame EA for DA2 being rushed out although I'm not sure time constraints were responsible for all of its flaws.

[addiction21]

legion999 wrote...


EA didn't say that, they gave other reasons than homophobia. I interpreted that addiction21 said that due to his: “Stay classy gamers.", comment.

Sorry that's a more general statement of anyone taking and using this poll (or most every internet poll) seriously. Maybe I put it in the wrong place.

[Cutlass Jack]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

What Origin is doing is exactly what Valve did with Steam to help adoption (things like Counterstrike and Half-Life 2, for example). We are at a point now where many games not even made by Valve require Steam to be installed, which no doubt Valve loves. I support this move because it helps adoption and I think pursuing a digital delivery system is a good thing for the industry going forward.

Yup the only reason I even have a Steam account is I was forced into it by Square Enix when I got Front Mission Evolved. (Store Copy) The game was a disappointment, but as a tactic I guess it worked, since I went on to purchase quite a bit directly from Steam based on my current library.

So I can hardly fault Origin for doing the same thing. The only thing I really hate is when a game I buy on Steam requires me to log into a separate similar service at the same time to play it. (i.e. Fable III and GFWL and Assassin's Creed games and UPlay)

[wolfsite]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

That may be true, but pounding on your chest that Origin is a success while using this forced sign-up method rings a bit hollow... then again, you were forced to use Steam for Skyrim as well, so I guess that's not only EA doing this kind of thing.

What Origin is doing is exactly what Valve did with Steam to help adoption (things like Counterstrike and Half-Life 2, for example). We are at a point now where many games not even made by Valve require Steam to be installed, which no doubt Valve loves. I support this move because it helps adoption and I think pursuing a digital delivery system is a good thing for the industry going forward.

This is a valid point.  I do find it ironic when people complain about wanting Steam when Steam was forced on us as well and went through a lot of problems which people seem to conveniently forget about when comparing the two clients.

I myself would prefer a DRM free solution but some pluses I can give Origin is that it uses far fewer resources on my computer than Steam.  Also when I put Origin in offline mode, it stays in offline mode.